The chapter comprehensively covers topics such as the extent of the Competition Commission of Singaporeâ€™s (CCS) investigative powers, the process for seeking immunity under Singaporeâ€™s leniency programme, the treatment of confidential or commercially sensitive information, the appeal process and the extent that civil damages actions can be sought for losses as a result of a cartel.

On 10 January 2017, Parliament passed the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill (No. 38/2016) (â€śBillâ€ť) into law. The Bill is not yet in force and will only come into operation on a date to be notified in the Government Gazette.

Applicable Test: Application for leave under s216A of the Companies Act to intervene in on-going proceedings

17 Jan 2017

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Chong Chin Fook v Solomon Alliance Management Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGCA 5 raised a significant point of law in respect of the legal criterion to be applied in an application by a shareholder of a company under s 216A of the Companies Act for leave of court to control conduct of on-going proceedings on behalf of the company.

In the recent case of Essar Oilfields Services v Norscot Rig Management [2016] EWHC 2361, the English High Court held that a tribunal has the power under s 59(1) of the English Arbitration Act 1996 to award the cost of third-party litigation funding as costs of the arbitration.

In the recent High Court decision of Jiangsu Overseas Group Co Ltd v Concord Energy Pte Ltd and another matter [2016] SGHC 153, the High Court considered issues arising from a challenge against arbitral awards on the ground that there was no contract between the parties.

The High Court also clarified that a party which deliberately allowed the arbitration to proceed in its absence should not be permitted to use that fact as a reason to apply for oral testimony to be given and cross-examined in challenge proceedings in court.

This update discusses the recent case of Rals International Pte Ltd v Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA [2016] SGCA 53 where the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that the assigneeâ€™s claim based on a number of promissory notes did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the underlying Supply Agreement. The assignee of such notes was therefore free to litigate in the courts.

This decision is of significance given the widespread use of promissory notes and other negotiable instruments, especially for our clients who are involved in international commercial and shipping transactions.